Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-062 Sybase Corp Peri FencingAGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION METING DATE: March 9, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued): PA 99-062, Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility, Site Development Review Amendment - Perimeter Fencing (Report Prepared by Michael A. Porto, Consulting Planner) ' ~( ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plans 2. Applicant's written statement 3. February 10, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Minutes, February 10, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Resolution approving a modification to the original SDR to permit the installation of a perimeter fence and entry structures. 6. Resolution denying a modification to the original SDR to permit the installation of a perimeter fence and entry structures. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Re-open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation 2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and Public 3. Question Staff, Applicant and the Public 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Deliberate 6. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 5) approving a modification to the existing Site Development Review to permit installation of perimeter fencing and entry structures; or 7. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 6) denying a modification the existing Site Development Review to permit installation of perimeter fencing and entry structures. BACKGROUND: Approximately six months ago, Sybase approached the City with a request to fence their campus for security purposes. Sybase has stated at the public hearing on February 10, 2004, before the Planning Commission and subsequently, that they have determined after occupying their site that their security system needs to be augmented with a fence. Their proposal of a customized perimeter fence would help eliminate many of the activities that are now occurring on the site. City Staff met with the Applicant over a series of months to discuss options and to refine the application into the current application. Planning Commission Meeting of February 10, 2004: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 10, 2004, reviewed a Staff Report (Attachment 3) detailing the finer points of a request from Sybase to construct a decorative fence around the perimeter of COPIES TO: The Applicant The Property Owner PA File ITEM NO. ' !~ their parking lot and to connect across the Dublin Boulevard frontage from Building A to the far corner of Building B (Attachment 1). Three relevant issues were identified for the Planning Commission in the Staff Report of February 10, 2004 (Attachment 3): aesthetics, perception and precedent. At the public hearing on February 10, 2004 on this item, these issues were discussed. In addition, there was an extended discussion regarding the security needs of Sybase as well as other methods that were considered to achieve Sybase's security needs. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission requested additional information on other types of security that was considered as part of the initial application review. In addition, a further communication following the Planning Commission Meeting was sent to the Planning Commissioners by Sybase that further discussed why the fence was necessary for security reasons. Sybase provided information of questionable activities that have occurred on the site that illustrated the need for greater security in the parking area and the open areas of the building. Summary of the Security Needs of Sybase: The Sybase Campus is 14. 4 acres with the buildings clustered toward the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection. Sybase has a large parking area that extends 500 feet from the building entrance. Sybase is a 24-hour, 7 day a week facility. The 14.4 acre Campus is difficult to adequately secure for employees that may work during evening hours. In addition, when events occur (and are seen on camera), it is difficult to immediately get to the location where the event is occurring. Consequently, their employees feel uncomfortable in the outlying parking areas. The cafeteria is located in Building B (Attachmentl) and faces out onto the dining plaza. There have been occurrences of people that do not belong on the Sybase Campus bothering employees in the cafeteria or the open area in front of the building that is often used for work activities. The dining plaza is over 100 feet from Dublin Boulevard at its closest point and is partially screened from Dublin Boulevard by a berm. This makes security difficult because drive-by surveillance is not effective because of the berm. Additionally, security response is fragmented because the distance from the parking lot to the dining patio is so great and the buildings physically separate the direct path of travel. Cameras help but resources can be stretched when security forces need to be in two places at one time. There are two other reasons why Sybase would like to upgrade their security: To increase security for their on-site day care; and, provide an extra level of security for the worldwide data center. At the conclusion of the public hearing on the project, the Planning Commission directed Staff to return with a brief report on what other security methods were considered by Staff during their initial work on the project. The item was then continued to the March 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. The Minutes from the February 10, 2004, Planning Commission meeting are included with this Staff report as Attachment No. 4. Alternative Security Methods Evaluated During Initial Project Review: The following alternative security methods were considered by Staff as part of their evaluation of the original proposal: 1. Complete Site Perimeter Fencing: The Applicant's original proposal was to fence the entire perimeter of the property. 2 Discussion: The fence design of the original proposal had many problems. The placement of the fence did not allow for proper vehicular access, turn around or emergency vehicle access. In addition, the design of the fence did not match the theme or quality of design of the Campus. The Applicant's original proposal did not utilize the existing buildings as a barrier and the fence proposed did not incorporate any decorative pilasters. The fence was proposed to be placed directly behind the sidewalk leaving very little landscaped area between the fence and the back of sidewalk. 2. Additional Security Patrol and Additional Cameras: The site is already patrolled by security and there are existing security cameras that pan the large parking area. Discussion: Sybase has stated that the site size, distance between the far edges of the parking lot and building entrances and the fact that a portion of the site is separated from the rest of the site by the buildings, makes additional security patrols difficult. The Sybase property has two areas that would need to be patrolled and monitored, the parking lot and the Dublin Boulevard patio area. Increasing patrols by adding additional personnel would be one method to provide a higher level of security but faced with the depth of the parking lot and the building separation situation, it appeared more feasible to construct a fence to limit and channel vehicular and pedestrian traffic to create a more defensible space. 3. Greenwall: An alternative considered at the outset of the project was that of a "geenwall" design. This design solution involves the use of either plant material or a combination of a solid barrier covered by plant material to create a visual and impenetrable blockage to restrict access to the site. Discussion: A Green wall would present a natural looking barrier to surrounding passersby and would create a softer looking element. However, the barrier would be solid affording no views into the site. This would be an issue for the police, as they would be required to drive onto the property in order to provide surveillance. This solution would limit pedestrian "walk on" traffic because pedestrians would not be able to walk through the landscaping. Vehicular traffic would not be able to be restricted because a solid landscaped fence cannot be swung into place or moved out of the way to permit cars to enter or exit the site. 4. Access Control Arms: Another solution considered was the implementation of vehicular access control arms and outward facing metal teeth embedded in the pavement of the parking entrances and exits. Discussion: While this solution would restrict vehicular access onto the property, pedestrian access would remain unencumbered. Pedestrians could walk through the landscaping or around the control arms. The embedded metal teeth could present a tripping hazard. A combination of the Access Control Arms and the Greenwall were considered, however, the solid nature of the Greenwall overshadowed the benefit because of the visual barrier the Greenwall created. 5. The Fence As Proposed: The fence as finally proposed was designed to limit the pedestrian and vehicular access points to the site. The proposal is to provide a fence around the parking area and to create gated access for both cars and pedestrians. The fence is proposed to be wrought iron and to utilize design elements consistent with the Sybase building. Discussion: The final design solution proposed by the Applicant encircles the employee parking area and creates limited points of vehicular and pedestrian access. The fence is proposed to be wrought iron allowing for views into the site from the adjacent roadways and property. Decorative Pilaster elements are proposed to provide a terminus when there is a change of direction. Card readers are provided to allow after-hour access. In conjunction with the parking lot security, the proposed solution includes a serpentine fence element to connect Building A to Building B along Dublin Boulevard. A sweeping portico mirroring the main Building A access is proposed for one of the two pedestrian access points to Dublin Boulevard. The connecting fence has a bermed backdrop that will partially conceal the fence. Around the visitor parking lot of 90 parking stalls outside the employee parking area, the Applicant is proposing a 4 foot high fence with decorative pilasters to define the parking area however, there is no limit to access to this parking area. Following the analysis of the alternatives mentioned above, Staff recommended that Sybase customize the fence design as discussed in Alternative 5, above. This fencing design satisfies Sybase's security needs, fits into the design theme of the campus, satisfies police visibility concerns and provides for adequate public access and traffic concerns. CONCLUSION: In accordance with the Planning Commission's request, Staff has summarized alternative methods of increasing security that Staff considered as part of Sybase's initial request. This report provides that information to the Planning Commission and is intended to augment the February 10, 2004, Staff Report (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission hear Staff's presentation, open the Public Hearing, deliberate and adopt one of the following resolutions: 1. Adopt Resolution Approving the amendment to the Sybase Site Development Review to permit the installation of perimeter fencing, (Attachment 5), or 2. Adopt Resolution Denying the amendment to the Site Development Review to permit the installation of perimeter fencing, (Attachment 6). 4 -~ , ~~er~.~i®r~~~. ~.rr~.~~~e N'~ye~~Pr ~? ; 200 The following discussion defines the objective and details of the proposed security gates and fencing for the Sybase Corporation world headquarters campus in Dublin. The principal site security objective is to control access to as much of the site property as possible by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic twenty-four hours a day. It is anticipated that the three vehicular gates will remain open between employee morning arrival and evening departure periods, Monday through Friday to avoid delays that may result in vehicular stacking at the gates. All three gates will be closed at night and on weekends and holidays. After hour ingress and egress will not be permitted at the Hacienda gate except for emergency vehicles that are equipped with gate release buttons. After hour access will be available at the Dublin Blvd. and Central Parkway gates for vehicles and drivers that have been issued a magnetic Sybase identification card that will be read by vehicle height card readers. Emergency vehicles that have been equipped with gate release buttons will also have after hour ingress and egress capabilities at these gates. Security members that are on site 24 hours each day can manually open all gates at any time. After hour access by unauthorized drivers or for authorized Sybase vendors and employees that have forgotten their badges will be provided for via an intercom system located adjacent to the card readers where a request for entry can be communicated to the security officers on duty. Signage will be provided at each gate indicating the respective hours of operation. Pedestrian gates will be provided adjacent to the Dublin and Hacienda entries. Two additional, pedestrian gates will be provided for the park area at the SE corner of the campus. Ingress will be for people with authorized Sybase badges only. Egress can occur by anyone pressing on the Von Dupren type exit bars. A pedestrian gate will be added at the North end of the walkway located between the buildings. This gate will remain closed at all times. Ingress will be for people with authorized Sybase badges only. Exiting can occur by pressing on the Von Dupren type exit bar. Fence Narrative.doc AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION METING DATE: February 10, 2004 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 99-062. Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility, Site Development Review Amendment -Perimeter Fencing (Report Prepared by Michael A. Porto, Consulting Planner) ~~~ ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Plans 2. Applicant's written statement 3. Resolution approving a modification to the original SDR to permit the installation of a perimeter fence and entry structures. 4. Resolution denying a modification to the original SDR to permit the installation of a perimeter fence and entry structures. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation 2. Take Testimony from the Applicant and Public 3. Question Staff; Applicant and the Public 4. Close Public Hearing ~. Deliberate 6. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 3) approving a modification to the existing Site Development Review to permit installation of perimeter fencing and entry structures; or 7. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 4) denying a modification the existing Site Development Review to permit installation of perimeter fencing and entry structures. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission considered a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement for the development of the 19 acre site at the north west corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The project was approved and is comprised of 2 six-story buildings that incorporate 420,000 square feet of campus office development and are owned and totally occupied by a single user. Sybase as their corporate headquarters. The Sybase property as developed; emulated an open campus design with broad expanses of lawn and berming oriented toward Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. Orienting the eating patio and activity areas toward the major street frontages, rather than burying the uses behind the building, was meant as a welcoming and inviting design element, visually encouraging participation by travelers, residents and other office users in Dublin by drawing the eye onto the property. COPIES TO: The Applicant The Property Owner PA File ~'~ ITEM NO. 14TTACHN4ENT Subsequently, on April 8, 2003, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Master Sign Program to permit the addition of another building mounted sign to be located along the Dublin Boulevard frontage of the site. All improvements requested by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council have been constructed. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: The project site is bounded on the north by Central Parkway, on the south by Dublin Boulevard, on the west by a vacant site refereed to as Site 15A of the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority s Santa Rita Properties and on the east by the Archstone "Villas" Apartment Complex. To the south, across Dublin Boulevard, is a large vacant parcel, which is a remainder portion of Site 16. Site 16 was subdivided at the time of the Commerce One application and included a site to be used by the proposed Ikea facility and the retail commercial component, however the portion of Site 16 closest to the Sybase property will remain vacant for the immediate future. Across Central Parkway to the north is the Emerald Point development, which was approved and constructed as amulti-tenant office complex although Cisco Systems currently owns and occupies the majority of the complex. MicroDental Laboratories has sub-leased a portion of their property and is located northwesterly of the Sybase site across Central Parkway and adjacent to Emerald Point. The Archstone apartment community. located across Hacienda Drive is comprised of 324 apartment units. The applicant, Sybase, is proposing to encapsulate their Corporate Headquarters with a fence. The fence is proposed to ring the development leaving a portion of the parking area adjacent to Dublin Boulevard outside of the fenced area and available for visitors. Vehicular access points will be maintained as well as pedestrian access points to Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Some reconfiguration of the pedestrian access will be necessitated to work with the proposed fencing. PROPOSED FENCING DESCRIPTION Fencing Design: The proposed fencing would be constructed of decorative wrought iron with individual pickets. The proposed color of the fence would be a dark gray to augment the precast panels of the existing Sybase buildings. The majority of the perimeter fencing would be 6 feet in height, however the portion of the fencing surrounding the visitor parking is only proposed at 4 feet. Innovative concrete pilasters are proposed at points where a change in direction occurs as well as at major vehicular and pedestrian entry points. Capping each pilaster will be integral lights of translucent Lexan (plastic) which, when illuminated, will give a soft glow rather than harsh security lighting. The stainless steel Sybase logo would be incorporated on the inbound pilaster at each vehicle entrance point. At the primary pedestrian access point to Dublin Boulevard, the traditional Sybase sw=eeping portico would be replicated to mirror the one over the main visitor entrance to Building A, except on a smaller scale. Sybase is proposing this fencing around the majority of the perimeter of the site. In order to incorporate adequate stacking, turning movements and parking, a redesign and reconfiguring of the existing vehicular access points is necessary in two of the three locations. The most northerly vehicular access point coming onto the site from Central Parkway is a shared driveway to provide future access to Site 1 SA to the west. Alameda County Surplus Property Authority currently owns the property to the west. They have reviewed the Sybase proposal and have no issues with the proposal. The proposed gates are to be located 240 feet onto the site from Central Parkway providing significant stacking to the proposed gates. A central card 2 reader/punch pad/intercom will be installed in a new' median and the existing Sybase parking area will be designed to allow for a turnaround in the event that these gates cannot be opened. The Hacienda Drive gates will not require any redesign of the site as these gates will have more limited use and more abbreviated hours of use (see below). The main visitor access and main employee access will continue to be from Dublin Boulevard. In order to accomplish the security gating, a major redesign of the parking lot in this area is necessary. A turn around area is provided for people who inadvertently come on to the site and want to return to Dublin Boulevard. A card reader/punch pad/intercom will be installed in a central median to provide after hour access to the gated parking area, however, 90 parking stalls for visitors will be provided outside of the secured parking area. A smaller four-foot fence with pilasters will be provided around this visitor parking area but it will not be gated. Walk in traffic from this parking are will be through a pedestrian gate, which will be open during normal daylight business hours. After hours. either security staff will grant access from anintercom-based call or by card reader/punch pad. (See Attachment 2, Applicant's written statement.) City authorized access will be required for fire and police personnel through an "Opticom" system as with other gated facilities in Dublin. Hours of Operation: Attachment 2 details the applicant's proposal and discusses how the proposed gates are anticipated to function. The three vehicular gates are proposed to remain open during the peak arrival and departure times during the workweek. All three gates would be closed during the evenings and weekends. The Hacienda Drive gate will not be available for access during the evenings and weekends except by emergency vehicles equipped with "opticoms" of like system. After hour access for individuals with magnetic card readers will be possible at both the Dublin Boulevard and central Parkway gates. People needing to get into the Sybase parking facility who have either forgotten or lost their magnetic card or are non-Sybase employees authorized to come onto the campus will be facilitated through an intercom system manned 24 hours a day by security personnel. Pedestrian gates in conjunction with the vehicular access points at Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive will be operated in the same manner as the vehicular gates. In addition two pedestrian gates from the courtyard plaza to Dublin Boulevard will be available for use by authorized Sybase personnel who have been issued the requisite access cards. Egress will always be available without the card by way of standard "panic" hardware. Fenee Loeation: The Sybase proposal is to encapsulate most of the site with a 6-foot high wrought iron fence. This will be typically located betvv°een the sidewalk and parking lot in the planting strip along both Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway and also along the entrance Drive from Central Parkway. The 6 foot ~~~rought iron fence will be located on the mutual property line on the west side of the property separating the Sybase property from Alameda County Surplus Property Authority s Site 1 ~A. Approximately 150 feet north of Dublin Boulevard, the proposed fence will transition from 6 feet down to 4 feet and this fence will be used to surround the ungated guest/visitor parking lot consisting of 90 parking stalls. This lot will have 24 hour unrestricted access. The 6-foot fence will be placed in an existing planter strip running from the joint Sybase/15A property line easterly until it terminates at Sybase Building A. Vehicular and pedestrian gates are included in this section of the fence. Rather than encapsulate the entire property, Sybase has chosen, along the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive frontages, to design the fence location such that it is of a serpentine nature. The fence is proposed to begin at a building corner and sweep around the existing landscaping and berming and terminate at the opposite building corner. Two pedestrian access gates are proposed; one with the curving Sybase signature portico. In this way, the fence appears to be an architectural element of the original design rather than an after thought and a means of dealing with a former or pending security issue. This fencing location utilizes the shorter sides of Building A and B as a barrier and does not make the site feel like ay fortress. The fence in this area is proposed to be located at the lower edge of the berming so that there will be a landscaped backdrop to lessen the visual impact of the fence. BACKGROUND OF THE SYBASE REQUEST: Sybase is amulti-national corporation with offices throughout the world. Their Dublin facility is Sybase's world headquarters and as such security is of prime importance. It was with security in mind that they are requesting an amendment to their Site Development Review to add a perimeter fence. Sybase has made the request to amend their Site Development Review to add the perimeter fencing for the following reasons: There are several key elements to the Sybase campus and to the daily operations for which security is of a great concern to the Corporation. • The facility itself is a 24 hour, seven day a week operation. The two six-story buildings are setback a considerable distance from Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive, which means that parking is all at-grade surface and is fanned out to the north and v,~est of the building. • From the main access point to the farthest reaches of the parking lot, the distance is greater than X00 feet. Most of the parking is within close proximity to the two main pedestrian access points, however. at change of shift the parking area is quite full and the new arrivals are forced to park toward the outer reaches of the parking lot. • Currently, there are no barriers to stop non-employee pedestrians from wandering into the parking lot and onto the site. During the development of the site, pedestrian walkways. lighting and emergency call boxes were placed at strategic locations throughout the parking lot, however, with a work force that is approaching 47% female, Sybase is interested in providing it's workers with that additional feeling of security. • Sybase operates "Cyberkids," and on-site day care center where parents can bring their children for day care services. Security for the children is also a concern. • As a Department of Defense Contractor, Sybase is obligated to demonstrate and maintain tight security in order to maintain their contract. Sybase is a developer of software for many different applications. • The Dublin facility is the Data Processing Center for their worldwide operations. Security inside the building is significant, although the site itself has little ability to channel and direct non- authorized individuals from accessing the building perimeters. • Over the last two years of operations. Sybase has encountered several instances of problems with individuals coming onto the property and bothering its employees. Calls to the City of Dublin police force have been few as the on-site Sybase security team has been able to assess and act on the trespass situations. STAFF ANALYSIS: In the instance of Sybase's fence, it would be creating a precedent that security is a major issue in the Santa Rita properties and subsequent users who come to develop in the area may request the same opportunity. Installation of the perimeter fencing will serve to segregate the Sybase campus from surrounding similar businesses such as the Emerald Point and MicroDental properties to the north that do not currently incorporate perimeter security fencing. The open Campus feeling of the developed properties would be altered with the inclusion of the fencing at Sybase. (A limited security fence has been approved in a back corner of the MicroDental property to secure Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms vehicles when they are not in use. However, this fencing was for a specific use away from public view and is specific to the tenant user.) Aesthetics: Although the applicant's fence plan as proposed, is well thought out and attractive, installation of the fence will serve to create a visual barrier that will detract from the openness of the Sybase Campus. Originally envisioned as a park like setting with highly upgraded and inviting landscaping, the primary corner of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive was thought to be an area where employees could sit to eat lunch and to do remote computer work in view of the public. The proposed fence is open in nature and will not detract from the view into the property but it will serve notice that the employees are secure and the public cannot interface with them. No other development within the Santa Rita properties has fencing. The Santa Rita development of Alameda County's Surplus Property Authority property was envisioned as a series of open Campuses and that employees and users would be able walk throughout the complexes to access Hacienda Crossings. With the potential development of the "Life Style Center" and Ikea, additional commercial uses may be introduced where both pedestrian and vehicular access between sites could be important. The development of the through access from Central Parkway to Dublin Boulevard (Sybase Drive) was seen as a mechanism to move both pedestrians and vehicles from Dublin Boulevard and across Central Parkway into the Emerald Point and MicroDental properties. Installation of this fence will interrupt this flow although there could be opportunities to recreate the through access on Site 15A, to the west, once it develops. Perception: Installation of a fence could convey the message that office and commercial sites in the eastern Dublin area are unsafe and that fencing off these properties are a necessity. Policy Precede~zt: Allowing the installation of this fence for Sybase will create a precedent. To date, the development community and the City have worked together to establish a clean and well-designed Campus Office area based on an open feeling and that of inviting people onto properties to experience the created environment. Security is a major issue for some users and it is possible that similar request will come in for retrofitting existing properties (MicroDental, Humphries-Zeiss and Emerald Point). There are still several sites left to develop with Campus Office Land Uses (Site 15A, 16A and all of the 2,000,000 square feet in Transit Center) and allowing Sybase to fence their property will indicate to the existing and future users that this form of security is acceptable. Residential properties to the east {Villas Apartments) and northeast (Jefferson Apartments) incorporate perimeter security fencing. These developments have fencing because there are many separate entries into the individual units and they are adjacent to a major thoroughfare. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with CEQAL Guidelines, Section 15301 (Classl). OTHER AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEW The proposed project has been reviewed by the Building Department, the Public Works Department, Police Services and Alameda County Fire Department. The concerns raised have been addressed in the plans presented for this amendment to the Site Development Review 5 CONCLUSIONS Sybase Corporation would like to add this fencing to the corporate campus for reasons which center on security. The design and location of the fence, in addition to the provisions of access during daylight and evening hours appears to have been well thought out. The project as designed will complement and blend with the existing structures and improvements on the property and, along the Dublin Boulevard frontage, will provide some additional architectural. interest with the proposed portico. The proposed columns will augment the building facade and anchor the fencing. The overall appearance of the proposed fence, if implemented should be pleasing. Staff analysis has determined that there are several issues that the Planning Commission should consider. The "aesthetics" of the fence has been addressed in the overall design of the proposed fencing. The second issue, "perception" is a judgment call. The fence will establish a barrier. The fence will signal security. The fence will serve to keep unauthorized individuals from entering the property unless invited. And the third issue, ``precedent" will be established by this action. The Planning Commission decision will signal that in the future, securit}~ fencing of major office and commercial properties is appropriate or that the open campus development approach present now in existing office/commercial sites should be continued. There are three options before the Planning Commission. The first option would be to approve the fence in its proposed location with the design provided by the applicant. The second option would be to deny the applicants request and the third option would be to require the applicant to modify their proposal based on testimon}~, deliberation and input obtained at the Planning Commission meeting. Two Resolutions are provided for Planning Commission consideration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission hear Staff s presentation, open the Public Hearing, deliberate and adopt one of the following resolutions: 1. Adopt Resolution Approving the amendment to the Sybase Site Development Review to permit the installation of perimeter fencing, (Attachment 3), or 2. Adopt Resolution Denying the amendment to the Site Development Review to permit the installation of perimeter fencing, (Attachment 4) 6 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Sybase Corporation 1 Sybase Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Attention: Dave Alexander Between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, west of Hacienda Drive. APN 986-0014-006 Planned Development-Campus Office Campus office In accordance with State law, a public notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project, to advertise the project and the upcoming public hearing. A public notice was also published in the Tri-Valley Herald and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, the City has received no contact or objections from surrounding property owners regarding the current proposal. RESOLUTION N0.04 - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, and APPROVE A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PA 03-033 RESOLUTION N0.04 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON BART STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT AND CERTIFY THAT IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIR FOR THE HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND RESTAURANT/RETAIL PROJECT PROPOSED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033 8.4 PA 99-062 -Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility Site Development Review Amendment Perimeter Fence. Sybase is proposing to enclose their Corporate Headquarters with a fence. The fence is proposed to ring the development leaving a portion of the parking area adjacent to Dublin Boulevard outside of the fenced area and available for visitors. Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report. Mr. Porto presented the staff report. He stated that the Applicant, Sybase, is proposing to enclose their site with a fence. They would like to put a perimeter fence 6-feet in height around their property along the Hacienda frontage, Central frontage, along the common access with Site 15 A, along the common property line and along the front of the project. Additionally, they are proposing to put a 4-foot fence around the front of the property around the visitor's parking lot and another 4-foot fence which would be serpentine in nature along the front of the property along the Dublin Blvd frontage connecting from Building B to Building A. This particular fence would be in front of a visitor parking area, but the visitor parking would not be gated. The fence would be a wrought iron fence and would be grey in color to complement the existing structure. There are also Pilasters proposed in the project which would have lights with Sybase logo and additionally, the applicant is proposing to redesign two of the driveways to permit the ability for cars entering that area to exit in case they cari t get access to the site. The Applicant's request for the fence is mainly because of security. They have very large parking lots located x~ ~,~'TAGH ~ ENT away from the buildings, an on-site day care center and worldwide data center. The applicant is also a contractor for Department of Defense and hope to prohibit unauthorized site access. There are three issues relative to Staff analysis of the project: 1. Aesthetics -the applicant has proposed a well though out plan. The applicant has created a presentation visualizing the property with and without the fence for the review of the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto explained in detail the Applicant's plan for the fence and the location of pilasters and the gated entrance. 2. Perception -the fence would signal that this is a secure facility since security is an issue and that the site has limited access points. 3. Additionally, the action on this item in an affirmative manner would set precedence for all future applications requesting a fence. It would allow fencing on a case-by-case basis and it will open doors for existing and future users to request that they be able to fence their sites also. In conclusion, the Applicant's request is primarily for security reasons and Mr. Porto stated that it was a reasonable request. The project design is well thought out, an attractive design and complements and blends with the building on the site. The Planning Commission has three options: 1. Approve the request as proposed. 2. Deny the request. 3. Ask the applicant to modify the design. Cm. King requested for a visual presentation of the parking lots in relation to the buildings. Mr. Porto pointed out the location of the parking lots through a map on the wall. Cm. Nassar opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant. Ernest Piccone, Facilities Manager, stated that the reason for this request is based on providing security for the employees. Sybase has designed the fence in a manner that it is in obtrusive and have tried to integrate it into the design of the building so that it did not look like an add on. The applicant has worked with Staff to satisfy any and all of their concerns. He discussed the design, traffic and security issues in great detail. They have had Mr. Piccone stated that Sybase realizes that the fence is not the "cure-all" for the issues stated, but it is part of an overall security plan. Cm. King asked if they currently have gates for the parking area. Mr. Piccone said no. Cm. King asked if they had the gates would they remain open during the day. Mr. Picone said they would have to set hours for the gates. Cm. King asked if Sybase discussed any alternatives to the fence. Mr. Piccone stated they plan to install cameras in addition to the fence. The way the parking lot is established, anyone can walk in from any direction. Cm. King asked if any of the businesses in the surrounding areas have experienced similar incidents. Mr. Piccone stated that he did not know. However, Sybase is setting up a meeting between Sybase's Security Director and Dublin Chief of Police to discuss security issues and at that time they may possibly also discuss if the surrounding offices are encountering similar problems. Cm. King asked if a 4-foot fence could accomplish the same level of security as a 6-foot fence. Mr. Picone stated that Sybase had considered a 4-foot fence but in the end decided against it due to the fact that people can climb over it easily. A 6-foot fence may be a little harder to climb over. Sybase also felt that having a 6-foot fence would not detract the appearance of the existing site. Cm. King asked to see slide with the parking lots and inquired what was to the east of it. Mr. Porto stated that the Villas apartments were on the east side of the parking lot and the JPI apartments were on the North East side. Cm. Nassar stated that he understood the security issues for Sybase and also understood that the kind of business that Sybase is in where security is a big concern. However, he pointed out that the issue before the Commission is also a precedence setting issue. Future businesses may want to fence their buildings once Sybase is allowed to do so. Therefore, Cm. Nassar suggested increasing security measures for Sybase's Data Center rather than surrounding the property with the fence. Mr. Piccone pointed out that one of the reasons Sybase is requesting the fence is for the security of its employees as they are experiencing problems when they walk to their cars in the parking lot at night. Cm. Nassar pointed out that this would hold true for any office complex. Mr. Piccone stated that the security concerns are due to the large parking lot, if the lot were smaller it would not have been a problem. Mr. Porto asked Mr. Picone to point out the existing security measures undertaken by Sybase. Mr. Piccone indicated that the existing parking has a mounted camera and a call box. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if the fence could be closer to the office building. Mr. Porto stated that Staff has been meeting with Sybase on this issue since August 2003. The original plans submitted were different in terms of look and approach. Sybase did design the fence to be closer to the building, but since the issue was the size of the parking lot and its distance from the building entrance, Sybase feels that the current design integrates better with the concept and the building itself. Staff then based on Sybase's concerns, met with the Police and Fire departments and discussed the issues with them and proposed modifications to the design of the fence and the current proposal is the product of those discussions. Mr. Porto added that Site 15A to the west of the parking lot is currently owned by Alameda County. The County was also part of the discussions and is comfortable with the proposed project. Mr. Piccone added that Sybase's additional concern was parking. There have been instances, especially during the holidays, where people used Sybase's parking lot to park their cars. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if the height of the fence was an issue with Staff. Mr. Porto responded that the area near the berm where the proposed fence would be 4-feet in height and since it would be behind the hedges, the fence would be'invisible' and therefore would be acceptable. Closer to the buildings where the fence height would increase, it would create an impression that it is not accessible from street. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Piccone if Sybase currently had any card key access areas. Mr. Piccone indicated that there was card key access area inside the building in the lobby area. There is a guard currently stationed there. Visitors to the building are required to sign-in and although they are issued a temporary badge they are not given access into the building. Cm. Machtmes asked if this were true for any side or back access. Mr. Piccone stated that it was correct. Cm. Machtmes wanted to know if there was a back up system available in case the Data Center was to break down. Mr. Piccone stated that there was an off-site Data Center at another location, which could perform basic functions, but it would be unable to run their worldwide operations. Cm. Machtmes expressed his thoughts regarding possible alternatives to address some of the issues and he also stated that the issue of the parking lot should be separated from issue of security of the Data Center within the buildings. They both have different needs. ~ ~; Mr. Piccone stated that the proposed fence would also secure the electrical and back up generator area for the Data Center. It is currently accessible for anyone to damage it. He enquired the Commission as to how it would treat the two issues separately. Cm. Machtmes stated that since the building itself was secured adequately; the fence would just be an additional layer of security and hence may not necessarily be linked with the parking lot issue. He stated while he understood Sybase's concerns, he also was sympathetic to the precedence issue. He asked Staff for all the alternatives that were considered prior to coming up with the fence. Mr. Picone asked if the Commission is going in the direction for Sybase to not have the fence. Cm. Machtmes stated that an alternative to the fence could be another structure, a barrier, or a tall shrub. Mr. Porto explained that during Staff discussions with Police Department, the issue of having a landscaped barrier was discussed. The Police Department had concerns regarding the inability to look into the parking lot with the landscape. Staff felt that having fence would allow the officers patrolling to look into the parking lot to ensure its safety. The proposed project is an acceptable compromise because the design is upscale, provided the visual ness, integrates with the existing building and did not encircle the building but encircled the site. Mr. Porto concluded by saying that Staff did ensure that all other alternatives were considered prior to deciding on the fence. Cm. King stated that bearing in mind all of Sybase's concern, a fence is not the cure. Mr. Piccone agreed that although it was not the cure it is just an enhancement to the existing security measures. Mr. Piccone listed some of the incidents that have occurred in Sybase's parking lot. Brad McInroy, Vice President Operations, clarified some of the issues raised by the Commission. He stated that Sybase has a very experienced security team who advised that having the fence was a key element for their security strategy. He also stated that the fence was also being proposed to provide security for the children in the on-site day care facility. Cm. Machtmes suggested enclosing that area alone. Mr. McInroy stated that it was not discussed previously and elaborated the reasons for having the fence around the parking instead of a particular area. Cm. Nassar stated that at this point although the Commission is not trying to project that it is against the project, but are only trying to find out the best possible solution for everyone involved. Based on the Commission's decision on this issue, it may create precedence and the Commission is ensuring that they have covered all aspects. Cm. Jennings stated that fencing was a great idea and what took Sybase this long to do it. Mr. McInroy stated that the reason was due to the fact that Sybase was involved with issues of signage for their property, which took some time. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked that in order to avoid setting precedence, could a standard be set for all future fence applications to determine if the project requires it. Mr. Porto stated that the issue of fencing was not part of the original project approval 2 years ago. Based on the design of the parking lot and the expanse of it may have alerted the Commission of the security issues at that time. Mr. Porto pointed out that the issue of approving the fence falls back on the Commission. Ms. Ram summarized Cm. Nassar's concerns by asking the Commission if they wanted to see criteria for evaluating the need for a fence in the future. Ms. Ram stated that the difficulty with these kinds of projects are that they are not conditioned or in other words they are not use permits where findings could be made and it depends on the Commission whether they would like to approve these projects or not. Ms. Ram and Mr. Porto explained to the Commission that all future applications for fence can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that Staff would point out to the Commission at that time their reasons for approving the current project. There was a discussion regarding adding landscaping along the fence to enhance its appearance. The public hearing was reopened and Mr. Piccone stated that there are trees currently planted in the parking lot and along the perimeter of the fence. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing. Cm. King voiced his concerns about setting precedence and wondered how the Commission would separate a future fence application to the application presented by Sybase. Mr. Porto responded that Sybase was asingle-use tenant for that site and has the necessary capital to carry out their request. The neighboring Microdental office site was originally planned for a campus office site but is currently multi-tenant use. Similarly, Emerald Point is also amulti-tenant use and does not have a huge parking lot like Sybase and is not zoned campus office and that could be a differentiating factor. Cm. Machtmes stated that in order to vote or better evaluate the project, he would need a matrix or more information from Staff on all the alternatives that were considered for the project. After much discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 9, 2004. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -none OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram discussed upcoming schedule with the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PA 99-062 TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF PERIMETER FENCING, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES WHICH WOULD AMEND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SYBASE INC., LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACIENDA DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INITIALLY APPROVED ON MAY 9, 2000 WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of an Amendment to the existing Site Development Review; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review would be amended to include perimeter fencing vehicular and pedestrian access gates located on along the perimeter of the Sybase campus; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would permit a 6 foot high decorative wrought iron fence to encapsulate the parking areas with vehicular card reader and pedestrian access gates as well as a 4 foot high decorative wrought iron fence to enclose the 90 stall visitor and guest parking lot in accordance with the specific operational characteristics included in the "Operational Narrative" dated received November 26, and on file; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the requested action is available and on file in the Department of Community Development including drawings and specifications; and WHEREAS, the Sybase Project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (Class 1); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application for this project on February 10, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required bylaw; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Amendment to the Site development Review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Amendment to the Sybase Site Development Review. A. The amendment to the Site Development Review contributes to an effective and attractive encapsulation of the campus office complex and provides security for its users by providing attractive and innovative fencing design that will augment the design of the site and direct automobile and pedestrian traffic to the site. T~~~~~` ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO PA 99-062 TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF PERIMETER FENCING, VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATES WHICH WOULD AMEND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR SYBASE INC., LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACIENDA DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD, INITIALLY APPROVED ON MAY 9, 2000 WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of an Amendment to the existing Site Development Review; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Review would be amended to include perimeter fencing vehicular and pedestrian access gates located on along the perimeter of the Sybase campus; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would permit a 6 foot high decorative wrought iron fence to encapsulate the parking areas with vehicular card reader and pedestrian access gates as well as a 4 foot high decorative wrought iron fence to enclose the 90 stall visitor and guest parking lot in accordance with the specific operational characteristics included in the "Operational Narrative" dated received November 26, and on file; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the requested action is available and on file in the Department of Community Development including drawings and specifications; and WHEREAS, the Sybase Project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (Class 1); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application for this project on February 10, 2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission deny the Amendment to the Site development Review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed Amendment to the Sybase Site Development Review. A. The amendment to the Site Development Review does not contribute to an effective and attractive encapsulation of the campus office complex and although it provides security for its users by providing an enclosure around the site, it does not add to the overall aesthetic of the area ,n ~z~hirh it is located. ..~rA~ ~-~ ~~~~ ~ ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Manager Page 3